Hello again Purple Pill Debate. Yesterday I started a conversation about misandry and parental rights that had an aim to examine how we all deal with prejudice. I’ll be honest, your answers surprised me and took the conversation in a direction I had never anticipated. What I learned is that many of us here aspire to treating everyone with the utmost level of acceptance and non-bias. Even in the face of hypothetical proof that a bias against a group was justified many chose to work on an individual basis, giving members of that group full benefit of the doubt. I think that is a noble cause, and more importantly a rational approach to decision making in the classical sense of the word. Unfortunately these ideals don’t seem to have undergone the vetting process of reality. Allow me to expand upon yesterday’s discussion

The problem we are looking to solve its that of gathering information about a person. In the most common case discussed here, its is a man looking to gather information about a woman and how she will act. The man, lets call him Davey, because thats a nice disarming name, wants to know whether he can trust a girl. Trust is very important in a potential relationship you know.

Men and women trust each other on a lot of things, Intimacy, secrets, faithfulness, finances, commitment. The list goes on. Of course we hear about the times when this trust goes sour and a partner gets burned in some way. Davey wants to avoid that. He asks his friend who lost some money in a bad break up how he can know if a girl can be trusted. To Davey’s surprise his friend said he thought his ex could be trusted all the way up until she broke that trust.

Lets leave Davey to ponder that for a moment and talk about two forms of decision making we all use in our daily lives. One is call Rational decision making, and the other is Heuristic decision making. Rational decisions happen when you know exactly what you current situation is, What you would like the outcome of your choice to be, and are able to analyze every different option to see which one best fits your aims. Its a great way to make choices and has high accuracy however it is very slow and requires a lot of knowledge about the situation you are in. In a classical sense true Rational choice can only take place when you have absolute knowledge and infinite computing power.

Then there are Heuristics. These are the quick and dirty shortcuts that help us get around the pitfalls of Rational choice. Heuristics are a method of making decisions that used class properties and relational qualities.

Ducks float - A duck is a type of bird - Birds probably float.

Another name for these two thinking processes would be Deductive and Inductive but thats for another day. What is important here though is that Heuristics make up a majority of our day to day choices and they rely on generalizations. Generalizations seem to be a hot button issue in these conversation, and are certainly an interest of mine. Obviously the best way to make an assessment about a person is through knowing them as an individual, however that level of information is rarely accessible to us up front and some things we may never know. For those gaps we have to use generalizations. “But why not just get to know the person first then decide who they are?”, Davey asks. Well , Davey, its because every interaction between people has some level of risk, and none is more fraught with peril than that of courtship. Having sex relies of the trust that one or more partners use birth control. Moving in relies on trust that your home is safe with your partner. Sharing finances relies on trust that your money is safe with your partner. Getting married relies on trust that your partner will stay committed. Its prudent to know if that trust is deserved before it is tested, not after.

There is a flip side to using generalization as well. They can help you make the right move to attract others. Sure, in time you will learn your future love enjoys a good drink, but when you first approach her you’ll have to guess that she will appreciate your buying her some alcohol. And why wouldn’t she, she is at a bar! See how that worked?

At a bar - Bar serves drinks - She must like drinks

Once Davey has grasped the basics of this method of thinking he can begin to apply it in much more sophisticated ways. He can examine what generalizations are true and what ones are false. Eventually he begins to build a profile of what women like and don’t like. Sure, everyone is different, but these are safe bet assumptions. They help him interact better. He understands that these Heuristics aren’t deterministic of what a woman wants, they are descriptive of what women want.

“But how do I test whether these generalizations are accurate or just part of my own bias”, Davey asks. Well, Davey, The proof is in the pudding. If using your understandings you find people like you more, then there you have it. If they are turned off by your behavior you might want to rethink the whole thing.

And these we have it. Red Pill is not about prejudice about women, it’s about gaining understanding about women. This is not sexism, because it is born out of observation and tested with trial and error. Our shared wisdom does not predict what a woman will do, it describes how we can make ourselves more attractive to women in general. And it does work. 20,000 men would not be extolling the virtues of this approach if they were landed high and dry.

And I’ll even give the blue pill the benefit of the doubt, since they are so eager to do the same for us. Perhaps the redpill has done nothing to increase the sexual success of its members. Maybe all the perceived benefit is just that and we are all deluding ourselves. Maybe all these guys are getting laid the same amount as before. What would that say about women then? The Red Pill, described as a hate filled misogynistic ideology has done nothing to reduce the amount these poor souls have sex.

Can generalizations be used for good and not evil?